Safe Speed Forums

Police officers routinely escaping punishment for speeding

When I got my speeding NIP for an alleged offence in 2006, I decided to contest it. I ended up winning the case. One of the letters I got from the police along the way claimed that "a 1mph reduction in speed can result in a 7% drop in accidents". I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.

This morning, I read this article in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... eding.html



If the police really believed what they said to me about the 7% reduction in accidents by observing the speed limit, then I have two questions:

1. Why are they not following their own advice, and sticking to the speed limit at all times?

2. Given that there are so many transgressions, and that the police feel that prosecutions are the best deterrent, why aren't more of these speeding cops being prosecuted, just as they tried to prosecute me?

My own interpretation of this sorry tale is that the police do not believe their own bullshit.

Does she really mean that?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I would not have a problem with this ...

... providing the same degree of latitude was extended to all motorists.

It's all a game. Everyone knows that exceeding a limit isn't, in itself, dangerous. The reason that this gets loudly reported now is the alienation of the public from the Police (principally by the way that road policing is carried out) and the resultant lack of sympathy.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Among other things, one could argue that, since police officers are supposed to have driver training standards superior to that of the general populace, while the spirit of the law applies to everyone, certain details should not be applied as zealously to those who receive additional driver training for the specific purpose of being in the service of protecting everyone's road safety.

Since normal drivers are not in charge of enforcing road safety laws, they do not receive the additional training, thus do not qualify for the leniency that officers should expect ... but not abuse.

As long as the general consensus remains that better driver training and testing is not warranted for the general populace, that's what you're going to get.

Besides, every officer knows - but will seldom admit to non-officers - that you really learn how to drive when driving above the posted 'limits'.

The closer the posted speed 'limits' were to the 85th %ile, generally, and/or the better the driver education, training, and testing standards, the less difference there would be between such idyllic average law-abiding drivers, and their average law-enforcing drivers.

I am, of course, ignoring the statistically significant differences between the psychological profiles of the present average law-abiding driver and the present average law-enforcing driver.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

And in addition to what has been said, if we are to believe that theses cameras are only placed at locations that warrant extra attention because of the number of accidents or the genuine concern for road safety at these points - shouldn't all drivers conduct themselves with extra caution whilst in the locale?

Or maybe even avoid it altogether if one cannot traverse it in accordance with the rigidly enforced posted limit?

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Having just done a RideDrive session with a police driving trainer they basically stick to posted numerical limits. NSL is fair game but they tend to stay within 20 mph above. He expressed slight frustration with some counties as they have been sticking in these numerical limits everywhere which makes it harder for them to find suitable training roads where they can get up a bit more speed. One thing I did pick up was these 'max speed X' signs. I always thought they applied to cars so tended to slow up but the guy said they were more for lorries so I shouldn't take as much notice as I was doing.

Everytime one of the police gets pinged they have to fill in a form and prove it was an emergency. How much time is wasted over filling in stupid forms that could have otherwise been spent on catching criminals???? How hard would it be to install a gps tracker that logged use of blues/sirens that could be matched up with camera locations so it could automatically generated the necessary information to save a person having to bother. If the whole lot was just sent off to the SCPs every month they should then be forced to sift through and find the relevant information. Then they'd probably learn to leave the emergency services alone. If they didn't I think they should be done for wasting police time

So if I were to undergo a police driving course at my own expense, and raise my driving standards so that they were superior to that of the general populace, would this mean that any speeding allegations against me would be waived, just as they are for the police?

Somehow, I very much doubt it.

Great post and a perfect summation DieselMoment

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Technically, it isn't theirs, but their employers collectively. As such, they earn the authority to wield such ... humbug ... against the general population.
As do I.
Even if you - somehow - underwent "a police driving course at my own expense, and raise my driving standards so that they were superior to that of the general populace",
a) you would still be a member of the general populace, thus ineligible to wield your additional talents
b) you have not been "entrusted with defending the safety of others", thus - again - ineligible to wield your additional talents (except to protect you and yours)
c) "how in the world did you access such priviledged knowledge anyway? No matter, you aren't an officer, so you aren't permitted to drive like one!" (Steps might then be taken to make it even harder for the average Joe to access such priviledged information.)

"C" is actually my point.

Long before my lifetime, when slavery was technically legal, it was also illegal for the slaves to learn how to read.
One slave that could read wasn't much of a threat to the staus quo, but a critical mass of literate slaves not only cheapened literacy in the eyes of those who tried to keep slaves reduced to stereotypes, the institution of slavery was also threatened.

Indiscriminate speed enforcement is an institution. One of the greatest threats to that institution, is superior driver education, training, and testing for the masses.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

There is another way to look at this ...

[basso profundo]Imagine a world, where every single driver education training, and/or testing facility - by definition - would require, at its head, a Police Class One Driver, or a RoSPA Gold driver, or some other standard that -today - many would say is ridiculously high, even for a chief instructor.

Imagine a world where the minimum standard for getting and keeping a driver's license would automatically exclude anyone who [either believes they, or actually,] cannot drive safely without
a) a rear window and a rear view mirror
b) a functioning speedometer, or a posted speed 'limit'
c) ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control, Roll Control, etc

Imagine a world, where at least 20% of licensed drivers would be alerted of their immediate need for additional training and testing, under pain of losing their license after the warning period - say, five years.

In this utopia, with this newly raised standard of driving, the speed limits would be set and posted in such a way that
a) most people, most of the time, would naturally drive at a speed somewhat slower than the posted limit
b) most people, most of the time, would naturally never exceed the posted limit by more than 2MpH
c) the only reasons ever to exceed the posted limits would be 1) an emergency service response with lives hanging in the balance - fire, ambulance, etc. 2) a crime in progress - yes, I do mean that for both the criminals, and their hunters.[/basso profundo]

Since we live in a world that requires that the vast majority of the populace can qualify for a driver's license, we live in a world where the rules and regulations have to be set so low, that driver disqualification by K/SI remains among the top five reasons for driver disqualification.

Even given the nature of a police officer's job, we know that most of them are not killed or seriously injured inside a car, whether performing their duties or not.

Why then, is it so unreasonable for them to be driving above posted 'limits' set so artificially low, that not only the vast majority of officers, but the vast majority of people, would exceed them if scameras didn't exist?

The real problem is not police behavior (I'm not talking about the bad apples), the real problem is
a) artificially low speed limits
b) speed cameras enforcing such low limits

Come to think of it, would speed cameras be so bad, if the speed limits they enforced were sufficiently reasonable?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Brainwashed .. Pete.




So.. I should not recommend a risky operation even though the patient has even-stevens chance of survival

OK .. tell that to those who live and continue enjoying life.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Blimey .. you talk seriously deep sense

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Deep sense indeed, as always Rush But in answer to your last point I have to say a resounding no...

I don't see, (have never seen), how any speed camera ever has, or ever will, able to determine what is a safe speed for the conditions?

The day they make one which observes: the slope and type of road, the weather conditions & visibility, the prevailing traffic, the sobriety of the driver, any mammals in the vicinity, (peds & other), and last but not least, trigger only at an appropriate speed - then I could be convinced.

The good news is we have such a thing; a traf pol. The bad news is, we don't use them anything like enough.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Oh god, it was you that I kept getting stuck behind!

My rule of thumb with those things is that for an average car (say 10 years old, FWD and fitted with cheapo tyres) in reasonable condition and in the dry is that you can pretty much double whatever they say and not have any problem.

Those signs don't actually apply to anything. It's just advice.. from your local council. It should be taken the same way you take any advice from local government.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I know that they don't technically apply but councils don't waste white paint and signs for nothing. The more paint on the road the more you have to be wary of. I didn't always slow right down to whatever the sign said but I would always ask myself why that sign was there.

This man is clearly certifiable.

Why, in God's name didn't they test this in court?


Ah, now I see where our Government is getting its ideas from. Try to get off an incorrect technically invalid charge? Well, we'll put you in clink.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

First, I'll spoil the ending by starting there ...How about we start at the 86th %ile, pre-1993. Would that be preferable to what's going on now?Hey, I enjoyed Aldous Huxley's Brave New World immensely. I bring it up here because I am reminded of something I remember reading, something about ... how it was in bad form to design something that was less technologically complex than its predecessors? I guess speed cameras wouldn't cut mustard in a Brave New World, eh?

(As an aside, while Amerikan NASA scientists spent millions of dollars to invent a pen that could write upside down, the Soviets used pencils.)

Look ... Amerikan highway patrol officers and metropolitan cops have been acting like speed cameras [that can move themselves, or be moved by order] when that is all that seems to be required of them for at least twenty five years, yet the plethora of additional subroutines programmed into these devices - literally and metaphorically - is precisely why you, me and almost everyone else prefers human[e] law enforcement over inhuman[e] law enforcement (still, never a cop around when you need one, right?).

Specifically, speed cameras in themselves, are neither a problem, nor even a symptom.
Their overuse is symptomatic of being addicted to a growth driven bottom line (also indicative of a hellbent compulsion to always favor technological solutions over superior human solutions).
Their misuse is symptomatic of so many problems, this portion of the post would be two pages long, so let's just stick with a road safety policy founded on lying to us in an attempt to keep us ignorant, so we'll pay up without resisting, among other sheepish behaviors to which we are already being conditioned.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Actually, though this is a nice story highlighting how the US spends far too much on reinventing the wheel as far as manned space is concerned. (The current Russian rocket delivering stuff to the ISS is basically an R7, the one Gagarin went up in! This is a bit like the US using a Redstone to make her deliveries!)

Using pencils in a space vehicle is lilky to cause serious problems in the long term!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Yes, that substrata of Scottsdale's so-called 'justice system' is guilty of menacing, as well as being proud of it.

It's so much easier to menace people who don't know any better, when they were taught not to know better.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation